Given the urgency of the Green message, how can we be
more effective?
That question lies at the heart of the current debate on whether or not we should have a Leader. What will make us more visible, more electable, and therefore more effective? It’s important to recognise the enormity of the task we’ve set ourselves and the colossal obstacles in our way. We live in a world where gross consumerism is promoted as something to aspire to, so we are fundamentally challenging the political and economic culture around us. We are seeking to influence not only the way people vote, but the ways that they think and act. Such change does not happen quickly, or effortlessly, especially when hampered by the archaic first-past-the-post voting system.
Our unsustainable society isn’t only the result of government policies and corporate actions. It exists because people are disempowered. The problems seem too massive, and modern life too difficult. It’s far easier to bury your head in the sand. But the Green Party doesn’t accept this. At the heart of our philosophy is a call for people to take ownership of their political future, and to actively seek to change things for the better. It is for this reason that the Green Party has never had a single Leader. It’s not because we don’t trust or have high expectations of people. In fact the opposite is true. We know that Green politics needs confident advocates in every community - inspiring and leading by example from the grassroots upwards. That means we need to recognise and nurture all those members who have talents, who can take initiative and who can communicate our message.
By contrast, conventional political structures are disempowering. Party leaders make decisions, and the rest of the members follow. If members don’t like the direction the Party is taking, or are disappointed by the results, the Leader takes the blame and is replaced. That’s the way it works. To think that the Green Party could call somebody its ‘Leader’ without giving them that sort of responsibility or authority is flying in the face of people’s, and the media’s, understanding of the role.
That question lies at the heart of the current debate on whether or not we should have a Leader. What will make us more visible, more electable, and therefore more effective? It’s important to recognise the enormity of the task we’ve set ourselves and the colossal obstacles in our way. We live in a world where gross consumerism is promoted as something to aspire to, so we are fundamentally challenging the political and economic culture around us. We are seeking to influence not only the way people vote, but the ways that they think and act. Such change does not happen quickly, or effortlessly, especially when hampered by the archaic first-past-the-post voting system.
Our unsustainable society isn’t only the result of government policies and corporate actions. It exists because people are disempowered. The problems seem too massive, and modern life too difficult. It’s far easier to bury your head in the sand. But the Green Party doesn’t accept this. At the heart of our philosophy is a call for people to take ownership of their political future, and to actively seek to change things for the better. It is for this reason that the Green Party has never had a single Leader. It’s not because we don’t trust or have high expectations of people. In fact the opposite is true. We know that Green politics needs confident advocates in every community - inspiring and leading by example from the grassroots upwards. That means we need to recognise and nurture all those members who have talents, who can take initiative and who can communicate our message.
By contrast, conventional political structures are disempowering. Party leaders make decisions, and the rest of the members follow. If members don’t like the direction the Party is taking, or are disappointed by the results, the Leader takes the blame and is replaced. That’s the way it works. To think that the Green Party could call somebody its ‘Leader’ without giving them that sort of responsibility or authority is flying in the face of people’s, and the media’s, understanding of the role.
But why do we want to appear
more like other parties anyway? Political parties are
famously going out of fashion. Any move to make the
Greens more like the conventional parties is likely to
lose us support rather than win us more. Activists who
want to feel empowered and engaged will look to movements
such as the recent climate change campaign where their
contributions will be welcomed and participatory
democracy is the normal way of doing things.
To be genuinely more effective, the Green Party has to do three things:
1. overcome internal differences to unite in the face of bigger threats such as climate change
2. make our manifesto speak to everyday concerns - like health, education, jobs and pensions
3. empower and support our local parties to become more effective - doing the groundwork which will lead to breakthroughs onto councils all over the country, not just in a handful of areas.
These important tasks need collective leadership at every level. Many leaders, not fewer.
The Co-Leader red herring
Some members do not support the idea of a single Leader, but would favour two equal, gender-balanced ‘Co-Leaders’. There is no opportunity to vote for Co-Leader posts as opposed to a single Leader in this referendum. The proposal is to create a single Leader and Deputy. Only if two candidates put themselves forward for the Leader position as a ‘job share’, and subsequently won the ballot, would they be called Co-Leaders.
Editor’s note: The motion, if passed, states that there shall be “a Leader and Deputy Leader or Co-Leaders of the Green Party”. Candidates may stand for the position of Leader either as individuals or jointly with a candidate of the opposite sex as a job share. If two job share candidates win, they will be known as Co-leaders and the Deputy Leader election would not take place, with the duties and responsibilities of both posts being shared.
To be genuinely more effective, the Green Party has to do three things:
1. overcome internal differences to unite in the face of bigger threats such as climate change
2. make our manifesto speak to everyday concerns - like health, education, jobs and pensions
3. empower and support our local parties to become more effective - doing the groundwork which will lead to breakthroughs onto councils all over the country, not just in a handful of areas.
These important tasks need collective leadership at every level. Many leaders, not fewer.
The Co-Leader red herring
Some members do not support the idea of a single Leader, but would favour two equal, gender-balanced ‘Co-Leaders’. There is no opportunity to vote for Co-Leader posts as opposed to a single Leader in this referendum. The proposal is to create a single Leader and Deputy. Only if two candidates put themselves forward for the Leader position as a ‘job share’, and subsequently won the ballot, would they be called Co-Leaders.
Editor’s note: The motion, if passed, states that there shall be “a Leader and Deputy Leader or Co-Leaders of the Green Party”. Candidates may stand for the position of Leader either as individuals or jointly with a candidate of the opposite sex as a job share. If two job share candidates win, they will be known as Co-leaders and the Deputy Leader election would not take place, with the duties and responsibilities of both posts being shared.
Green Party’s Philosophical Basis
Power is simply our ability to be effective, but it takes different forms. We seek a society in which people are empowered and involved in making the decisions which affect them. We reject the hierarchical structure of leaders and followers, and, instead advocate participatory politics. For this reason the Green Party itself does not have an individual leader.
From the Green Party’s Philosophical Basis. Read it all at www.policy.greenparty.org.uk
